Last visit was: 23 May 2024, 11:03 It is currently 23 May 2024, 11:03
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Posts: 78
Own Kudos [?]: 9866 [96]
Given Kudos: 38
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 70
Own Kudos [?]: 748 [34]
Given Kudos: 108
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41 (Online)
General Discussion
LBS Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2019
Posts: 834
Own Kudos [?]: 781 [1]
Given Kudos: 1577
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 201
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [4]
Given Kudos: 140
Location: India
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain. Greater prosperity there has gone hand in hand with steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat. Per capita income is almost certain to rise further, yet increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?

A. Some land in Virodia that is currently used for grain production will soon be turned into pastureland for grazing cattle for meat. - 'some' is EXTREME + turning the land into pastureland is OUT OF SCOPE

B. In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past. - WEAKEN (it is weakening the conclusion)

C. In Virodia, the amount of grain it takes to produce one pound of meat is likely to increase in coming years. - WEAKEN ( it is weakening the conclusion)
D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before. - OUT OF SCOPE (no mention of anything related to diet)

E. Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both. - CORRECT
McCombs School Moderator
Joined: 26 May 2019
Posts: 325
Own Kudos [?]: 354 [2]
Given Kudos: 151
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain. Greater prosperity there has gone hand in hand with steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat. Per capita income is almost certain to rise further, yet increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?

A. Some land in Virodia that is currently used for grain production will soon be turned into pastureland for grazing cattle for meat. -- No mention of this in the passage

B. In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past. -- We can't infer about per capita income in future

C. In Virodia, the amount of grain it takes to produce one pound of meat is likely to increase in coming years. -- We can't infer about the grain to meat conversion ratio in future

D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before. -- "Than ever before" is strong phrase and it not indicated in the passage whatsoever

E. Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both. -- CORRECT, since the country has been barely self-sufficient in the production of both, with increase in the per-capita income, the probability of import of grain or meat or both increases.

Intern
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 48
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [0]
Given Kudos: 65
Location: India
Schools: Alberta '23
GPA: 3.9
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
OG 21 Explanation for the above question :

Situation Virodia has been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain. Recently per capita meat consumption in Virodia has been increasing. Recent increases in per capita income will probably continue, but production of grain will probably not increase. It takes several pounds of grain to produce each pound of meat.

Reasoning What claim is most strongly supported by the given information? We are told that producing a pound of meat requires several pounds of grain. If (1) more meat is going to be consumed in Virodia, (2) more grain will not be produced, and (3) there is no excess grain, then Virodia will have to import meat, or import grain so it can produce more meat, or both.

Nothing in the information given provides any evidence as to whether the amount of grain needed to produce a pound of meat will change.
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1258
Own Kudos [?]: 203 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
Experts, can someone comment on the question stems for these questions? I was under the impression that this was a strengthen question.

The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain. Greater prosperity there has gone hand in hand with steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat. Per capita income is almost certain to rise further, yet increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?

A. Some land in Virodia that is currently used for grain production will soon be turned into pastureland for grazing cattle for meat.
-only tells us that pastureland will be transformed for meat, but a reduction in grain production means cows will have less to eat…
-does not give us indication that per capita income is going to rise further

B. In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past.
-weakens argument

C. In Virodia, the amount of grain it takes to produce one pound of meat is likely to increase in coming years.
-weakens argument

D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before.
-no…we can’t infer this…domestic grain production is likely to drop; not clear how much of that would be supplemented from elsewhere

E. Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both.
-Correct…per capita consumption of meat is increasing and to date they’ve been barely self-sufficient in obtaining it
-if per capita income is near certain to rise further, then we got to get that meat from somewhere…
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1373
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
CEdward wrote:
Experts, can someone comment on the question stems for these questions? I was under the impression that this was a strengthen question.

The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain. Greater prosperity there has gone hand in hand with steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat. Per capita income is almost certain to rise further, yet increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?

A. Some land in Virodia that is currently used for grain production will soon be turned into pastureland for grazing cattle for meat.
-only tells us that pastureland will be transformed for meat, but a reduction in grain production means cows will have less to eat…
-does not give us indication that per capita income is going to rise further

B. In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past.
-weakens argument

C. In Virodia, the amount of grain it takes to produce one pound of meat is likely to increase in coming years.
-weakens argument

D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before.
-no…we can’t infer this…domestic grain production is likely to drop; not clear how much of that would be supplemented from elsewhere

E. Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both.
-Correct…per capita consumption of meat is increasing and to date they’ve been barely self-sufficient in obtaining it
-if per capita income is near certain to rise further, then we got to get that meat from somewhere…

For strengthen questions, we need a conclusion. This argument has no conclusion but a bunch of informational sentences. This is 1st hint.
Secondly, the meaning of question: Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given? If it were strenghten question, the wording would have been : which of the following, if true, supports < something= conclusion> ?
Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2020
Posts: 60
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 89
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
hello,
I was going to mark E as my answer but I changed as I thought if meat consumption is going to increase then grain consumption will decrease which can be used in the production of meat and everything would be balanced. not that any other answer looks relevant but this one also seems quite illogical.
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2020
Posts: 148
Own Kudos [?]: 52 [0]
Given Kudos: 16
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]

A) Irrelevant to the argument
B) Challenging the premise in the argument
C) Can't be concluded from the argument
D) Irrelevant
E) CORRECT - If the increase in grain production is unlikely, then Virodia would need to import both the meat and grains
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5156 [2]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
CEdward wrote:
Experts, can someone comment on the question stems for these questions? I was under the impression that this was a strengthen question.

What we have to notice about this question is that, even though the stem uses the word "strongly," the stem indicates that we need the choice that "is most strongly supported by the information given."

In other words, we need a conclusion, and in fact, this question is a Conclusion question, which by the way, is not the same as an Inference question.

A Conclusion question is basically a Strengthen question reversed.

Whereas a Strengthen question correct answer supports the conclusion in the passage, in a Conclusion question, the passage provides support for the correct answer.
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5156 [1]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
VatsSaraf wrote:
hello,
I was going to mark E as my answer but I changed as I thought if meat consumption is going to increase then grain consumption will decrease which can be used in the production of meat and everything would be balanced. not that any other answer looks relevant but this one also seems quite illogical.

The key thing we have to notice is this detail in the passage, "it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat."

That information indicates that, even if people eat less grain as they eat more meat, if they consume the same amount of food in terms of pounds of food per person, every pound of meat they eat will take multiple pounds of grain to produce.

For instance, if a person used to eat 1 pound of meat per week and 6 pounds of grain, for a total of 7 pounds of food, now maybe the same person eats 2 pound of meat and 5 pounds of grain. However, although that person is not eating any more pounds of food in total, still 7, more grain gets consumed, because the production of that extra pound of meat takes "several pounds of grain."

In fact, even if the person goes from 1 pound of meat and 6 pounds of grain to two pounds of meat and 3 pounds of grain, STILL more grain will be consumed if it take "several" pounds of grain to produce the additional pound of meat.

In that situation, it's reasonable to conclude that they will have to start importing if they are eating more meat.
Intern
Joined: 10 Apr 2021
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
hello MartyTargetTestPrep
can you please explain why B is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5156 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
heidy333 wrote:
hello MartyTargetTestPrep
can you please explain why B is wrong?

Here's (B).

(B) In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past.

Since this is a Conclusion question, the correct answer will be supported by or follow logically from what the passage says.

The only information the passage provides about the future is the following:

Per capita income is almost certain to rise further.

Increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

We can also presume given what the passage say that meat consumption will likely increase in the future.

None of those facts or presumptions indicates anything about the rate of increase in per capita income (without our making up some kind of convoluted story, such as, for instance, that meat consumption will result in heart attacks and thus cause a reduction in the rate of increase of per capita income).

So, (B) is not supported by what the passage says.
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Posts: 289
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 499
Location: India
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
Hi Experts,
I took an extreme case.
What if population decreases and meat consumption is same. Per capita consumption will still likely to increase in the future. But in this case, we don't need extra grain because meat consumption is same. In this case, we can't conclude E.
How to discard this case through passage?

Thanks!
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5156 [2]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Sneha2021 wrote:
Hi Experts,
I took an extreme case.
What if population decreases and meat consumption is same. Per capita consumption will still likely to increase in the future. But in this case, we don't need extra grain because meat consumption is same. In this case, we can't conclude E.
How to discard this case through passage?

Thanks!

Hi Sneha 2021.

Notice what the question stem asks:

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?

Does the "information given" say anything about a population decrease? No.

Do we have a common sense reason to believe that there will be population decrease? No.

So, really we have no reason to believe that there will be a population decrease.

Thus, since the correct answer must be the one that is "most strongly supported by the information given," (E) is the best choice.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65446 [2]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Sneha2021 wrote:
Hi Experts,
I took an extreme case.
What if population decreases and meat consumption is same. Per capita consumption will still likely to increase in the future. But in this case, we don't need extra grain because meat consumption is same. In this case, we can't conclude E.
How to discard this case through passage?

Thanks!

The argument needs to support the correct option. We cannot take cases that the argument does not mention. All we know is that per capita consumption of meat increases with per capita income increase. Since per capita income will rise further, we can expect an increase in per capita consumption of meat. If the country cannot produce it, it is likely to be imported.
Since the argument mentions no change in population, we can assume that it doesn't change.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jan 2020
Posts: 101
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 346
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
VatsSaraf wrote:
hello,
I was going to mark E as my answer but I changed as I thought if meat consumption is going to increase then grain consumption will decrease which can be used in the production of meat and everything would be balanced. not that any other answer looks relevant but this one also seems quite illogical.

The key thing we have to notice is this detail in the passage, "it takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce one pound of meat."

That information indicates that, even if people eat less grain as they eat more meat, if they consume the same amount of food in terms of pounds of food per person, every pound of meat they eat will take multiple pounds of grain to produce.

For instance, if a person used to eat 1 pound of meat per week and 6 pounds of grain, for a total of 7 pounds of food, now maybe the same person eats 2 pound of meat and 5 pounds of grain. However, although that person is not eating any more pounds of food in total, still 7, more grain gets consumed, because the production of that extra pound of meat takes "several pounds of grain."

In fact, even if the person goes from 1 pound of meat and 6 pounds of grain to two pounds of meat and 3 pounds of grain, STILL more grain will be consumed if it take "several" pounds of grain to produce the additional pound of meat.

In that situation, it's reasonable to conclude that they will have to start importing if they are eating more meat.

Hi MartyTargetTestPrep

Based on the above information, how is option D incorrect. If the per capita consumption of meat per pound increases, indirectly the consumption of grains will also increase.

Thanks
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5156 [2]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
2
Kudos
KittyDoodles wrote:
Hi MartyTargetTestPrep

Based on the above information, how is option D incorrect. If the per capita consumption of meat per pound increases, indirectly the consumption of grains will also increase.

Thanks

Here's choice (D).

D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before.

Notice that choice (D) is not about the total consumption, or use, of grain in Virodia. Rather, choice (D) is specifically about the proportion of "the average Virodian's diet" made up by grain.

So, so the fact that, by consuming meant, Virodians will indirectly cause more grain to be used for the production of meat does not support (D), because (D) is about only the direct consumption of grain as part of their diet by Virodians.
Intern
Joined: 27 Oct 2021
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Location: India
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]

Can you explain why A is out of scope?

If an increase in prod. of grain is highly unlikey but the demand for meat is going to go up in virodia, the grain land being turned into pastures for cattle for meat should be the next likely step for Virodia right? Which therefore is supported by the info provided.

Or are we saying that because the info provided clearly mentions Virodia to be barely self- sufficient, we are assuming that it can't take this step.

TIA!
Re: The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts